Skip to main content
Log in

Lanchester models for mixed forces with semi-dynamical target allocation

  • Theoretical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

We consider the three standard Lanchester models of warfare (aimed-fire, unaimed-fire and asymmetric) with heterogeneous (mixed) forces on both sides. We begin by reviewing the homogeneous models, and then construct conserved quantities for the mixed models with separable kill-rates and random target allocation, commenting on the nature and allocation of unit types. Next we consider a more general semi-dynamical target allocation, construct a conserved quantity for the aimed-fire model and prove that the optimal strategy is to annihilate opposing unit types in succession. Finally, we make some comments on the optimal initial allocation of costed unit types in response to this.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biddle SD (2004). Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colegrave RK and Hyde JM (1993). The Lanchester square-law model extended to a (2,2) conflict. IMA J Appl Math 51: 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deitchman SJ (1962). A Lanchester model of guerrilla warfare. Opns Res 10: 818–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JM (1997). Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology, and Social Science. Lecture Notes, Vol. 4, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Addison Wesley: Reading, MA.

  • Fowler BW (1999). Towards a formal theory of aggregation. Mil Op Res 4.1: 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmbold RL (1965). A modification of Lanchester's equations. Opl Res 13: 857–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer-Dixon TF (1987). A common misapplication of the Lanchester square law. Int Sec 12: 135–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn RA and Johnson CR (1985). Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jaiswal NK, Kumari M and Nagabhushana BS (1995). Optimal force mix in heterogeneous combat. Nav Res Log 42: 873–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann WW (1983). Nonnuclear deterrence. In: Steinbruner J.D. and Sigal L.V. (eds). Alliance Security: NATO and the No-First-Use Question. Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaup GT, Kaup DJ and Finkelstein NM (2005). The Lanchester (n,1) problem. J Opl Res Soc 56: 1399–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanchester FW (1916). Aircraft in Warfare: the Dawn of the Fourth Arm, Chapter 5. Constable & Co: London. Written in 1914, reprinted in Newman J (ed.) (1956), The World of Mathematics 4: 2138–2157 (Simon and Schuster: New York; also Dover: Mineola, NY (2000)).

  • Lepingwell JWR (1987). The laws of combat? Lanchester re-examined. Int Sec 12: 89–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas TW and McGunnigle JE (2003). When is model complexity too much? Illustrating the benefits of simple models with Hughes' salvo equations. Nav Res Log 50: 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas TW and Turkes T (2004). Fitting Lanchester models to the battles of Kursk and Ardennes. Nav Res Log 51: 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemirel NE and Kandiller K (2006). Semi-dynamic modelling of heterogeneous land combat. J Opl Res Soc 57: 38–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przemieniecki JS (2000). Mathematical Methods in Defense Analyses, 3rd edn. Am Inst Aeronautics & Astronautics: Reston, VA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DM and Conolly BW (1992). An extension of the Lanchester square law to inhomogeneous forces with an application to force allocation methodology. J Opl Res Soc 43: 741–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JG (1983). Lanchester Models of Warfare, 2 Vols. Operations Research Society of America, Military Applications Section: Arlington, VA.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Simon Eveson and Jamie Wood for discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N J MacKay.

Appendix: derivation of conserved quantities

Appendix: derivation of conserved quantities

Suppose that we seek, for Lanchester equations (12) for aimed fire with mixed forces on both sides and random allocations, a quadratic conserved quantity of the form

Differentiating and substituting-in equations (12), one finds that for dQ/dt=0 we must have, for all i, j, α, β,

These equations are inconsistent for general r α i and b i α, but are soluble in the separable case (13), when they become

yielding (14). Analogous derivations of (16,18) are straightforward.

Now consider our semi-dynamical target allocation. Once again there is no quadratic conserved quantity for inseparable kill-rates. For separable kill-rates we simply note that the dynamical equations

lead to conservation of

for the Red and Blue contributions to Q′ have the same derivative,

The implication is that Red should concentrate fire in order of decreasing b i r i, Blue in order of r α b α.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacKay, N. Lanchester models for mixed forces with semi-dynamical target allocation. J Oper Res Soc 60, 1421–1427 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.97

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.97

Keywords

Navigation